<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: (DVD) Sex and the City</title>
	<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297</link>
	<description>How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-34998</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-34998</guid>
					<description>Well, I broke down and rented the DVD for "the movie."

It is sad and washed-out. The figures by their looks and even subdued voice are solidly middle-aged. This must be a serious mis-calculation by fag-director King, in that the audience for the series begins with pre-teens and probably peaks with 20-somethings. Sarah Jessica is truly ugly -- indeed, even when dressed up as a blushing bride. She has to be the only girl in memory that seems ugly even as a bride. Even Kim Cattrall looks kikey: only Kristin Davis (Charlotte) remains looking like a pretty Aryan goddess -- and of course recall that they made her an explicit jewish convert.

How sad to reach middle age and have nothing but the memory of disappearing youthful pleasures to give meaning to life!

The film is about "forgiveness," but forgiveness as only kike-faggots could conceive of it: there is no shedding of blood for the remission of sins, no Christ, not even a semblance of counterfeit meaning or beauty. If you watch it, do it for the reason my sister has for occasionally reading People magazine -- to see the emptiness of life without God.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I broke down and rented the DVD for &#8220;the movie.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is sad and washed-out. The figures by their looks and even subdued voice are solidly middle-aged. This must be a serious mis-calculation by fag-director King, in that the audience for the series begins with pre-teens and probably peaks with 20-somethings. Sarah Jessica is truly ugly &#8212; indeed, even when dressed up as a blushing bride. She has to be the only girl in memory that seems ugly even as a bride. Even Kim Cattrall looks kikey: only Kristin Davis (Charlotte) remains looking like a pretty Aryan goddess &#8212; and of course recall that they made her an explicit jewish convert.</p>
<p>How sad to reach middle age and have nothing but the memory of disappearing youthful pleasures to give meaning to life!</p>
<p>The film is about &#8220;forgiveness,&#8221; but forgiveness as only kike-faggots could conceive of it: there is no shedding of blood for the remission of sins, no Christ, not even a semblance of counterfeit meaning or beauty. If you watch it, do it for the reason my sister has for occasionally reading People magazine &#8212; to see the emptiness of life without God.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-31082</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-31082</guid>
					<description>Actually I did give Lost a try a couple months ago at the urging of a co-worker. There was something mesmerizing about it. Some of the ideas are quite good, such as flashing back to tell the earlier story of each person, with a "now you know the rest of the story" effect. However, after a few episodes, I couldn't take any more:

Actions -- even by beasts -- are largely causeless and motiveless. There's always "someone" that tags along on the missions inland, for no reason -- and they let him. Purely a plot device. The beast that grabs the pilot -- why him only, and how does he disappear? Even feral beasts have a logic to their behavior. Then as the three are running away, sometimes these two are together, and the third separated, other times a different two; finally they all drift back together. Anyone who has run around even in a small wilderness knows that that is not how it happens.

Imagine the survivors including a doctor, an electronics specialist, an FBI man, but no man of the cloth. And the men are all pass-the-buck on religion, so, quite realistically, a woman steps forward and leads the believe-what-you-want memorial service. However, the stage is obviously set to show the emergence of societal institutions like "law and order" from the ground up, including religion, which is therefore purely man-made.

Then you have the racial mix: the usual deep and wise (even if this leads to an erratic outburst) Oriental, the magic Negro, and the silly white bimbette. I suppose the latter is to counter-balance the doctor, so that the white man as bringer of civilization is not suspected as a theme. Probably making the doctor a Negro would have been too counter-intuitive for even producers in our day to have seriously considered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually I did give Lost a try a couple months ago at the urging of a co-worker. There was something mesmerizing about it. Some of the ideas are quite good, such as flashing back to tell the earlier story of each person, with a &#8220;now you know the rest of the story&#8221; effect. However, after a few episodes, I couldn&#8217;t take any more:</p>
<p>Actions &#8212; even by beasts &#8212; are largely causeless and motiveless. There&#8217;s always &#8220;someone&#8221; that tags along on the missions inland, for no reason &#8212; and they let him. Purely a plot device. The beast that grabs the pilot &#8212; why him only, and how does he disappear? Even feral beasts have a logic to their behavior. Then as the three are running away, sometimes these two are together, and the third separated, other times a different two; finally they all drift back together. Anyone who has run around even in a small wilderness knows that that is not how it happens.</p>
<p>Imagine the survivors including a doctor, an electronics specialist, an FBI man, but no man of the cloth. And the men are all pass-the-buck on religion, so, quite realistically, a woman steps forward and leads the believe-what-you-want memorial service. However, the stage is obviously set to show the emergence of societal institutions like &#8220;law and order&#8221; from the ground up, including religion, which is therefore purely man-made.</p>
<p>Then you have the racial mix: the usual deep and wise (even if this leads to an erratic outburst) Oriental, the magic Negro, and the silly white bimbette. I suppose the latter is to counter-balance the doctor, so that the white man as bringer of civilization is not suspected as a theme. Probably making the doctor a Negro would have been too counter-intuitive for even producers in our day to have seriously considered.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Josh</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-30769</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-30769</guid>
					<description>Food for thought: I'd love to see you do this sort of analysis with the show LOST.  There is much for you to dissect there.  If you can pull out so much from a show like Sex in the City, I can only imagine what your dissection of LOST would be like to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Food for thought: I&#8217;d love to see you do this sort of analysis with the show LOST.  There is much for you to dissect there.  If you can pull out so much from a show like Sex in the City, I can only imagine what your dissection of LOST would be like to read.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27169</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27169</guid>
					<description>No, I'm with you. That is indeed the question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I&#8217;m with you. That is indeed the question.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MRB</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27166</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27166</guid>
					<description>Well, I'm not mocking her face, I'm just noting that that others seem to think the same as I do.  The implicit question is, why is she put forward as a beauty?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;m not mocking her face, I&#8217;m just noting that that others seem to think the same as I do.  The implicit question is, why is she put forward as a beauty?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27151</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27151</guid>
					<description>Well, like my mentor Jack taught -- no one is responsible for the face he is born with, but everyone is responsible for the face he dies with.

So there is no need to mock SJP for her natural deficiency of pulchritude.

But the real question is why Aryan girls fawn over her as if she did have something to offer, whether in the department of beauty or wisdom.

Actually, I'm not at all sure they do. This is probably at bottom a story about who controls Hollywood more than anything else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, like my mentor Jack taught &#8212; no one is responsible for the face he is born with, but everyone is responsible for the face he dies with.</p>
<p>So there is no need to mock SJP for her natural deficiency of pulchritude.</p>
<p>But the real question is why Aryan girls fawn over her as if she did have something to offer, whether in the department of beauty or wisdom.</p>
<p>Actually, I&#8217;m not at all sure they do. This is probably at bottom a story about who controls Hollywood more than anything else.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MRB</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27064</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-27064</guid>
					<description>I could never understand why people considered Sara Jessica Parker a beauty. Now I realize that they &lt;a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21494412/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;don't&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could never understand why people considered Sara Jessica Parker a beauty. Now I realize that they <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21494412/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">don&#8217;t</a>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-26828</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 22:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-26828</guid>
					<description>Adding to #10 -- And now, "Jewess" is &lt;a href="http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/feature.html?id=772" rel="nofollow"&gt;officially back&lt;/a&gt; again. (HT: &lt;a href="http://spiritwaterblood.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;spiritwaterblood&lt;/a&gt;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adding to #10 &#8212; And now, &#8220;Jewess&#8221; is <a href="http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/feature.html?id=772" rel="nofollow">officially back</a> again. (HT: <a href="http://spiritwaterblood.com" rel="nofollow">spiritwaterblood</a>).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-21703</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-21703</guid>
					<description>In case anyone doubted the racial aspect of the fashion industry, see &lt;a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fashion-is-racist-insider-lifts-lid-on-ethnic-exclusion-782974.html" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article. (HT: &lt;a href="http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;Vanguard News Network&lt;/a&gt;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In case anyone doubted the racial aspect of the fashion industry, see <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fashion-is-racist-insider-lifts-lid-on-ethnic-exclusion-782974.html" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">this</a> article. (HT: <a href="http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Vanguard News Network</a>).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-17452</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/297#comment-17452</guid>
					<description>Re the "-ess" suffix -- for a while, it was &lt;i&gt;de rigour&lt;/i&gt; to refer to "waiters" and "actors" regardless of sex. But notice how "waitress" and "actress" are creeping back into vogue.

It's as if everyone intuits that it is outrageous to reduce women to the same level as men.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re the &#8220;-ess&#8221; suffix &#8212; for a while, it was <i>de rigour</i> to refer to &#8220;waiters&#8221; and &#8220;actors&#8221; regardless of sex. But notice how &#8220;waitress&#8221; and &#8220;actress&#8221; are creeping back into vogue.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s as if everyone intuits that it is outrageous to reduce women to the same level as men.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
